The Chinese Dream

At the end of 2014,Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward the strategic layout of the Four Comprehensives—comprehensively building a moderately prosperous society,deepening reform,advancing the rule of law,and strictly governing the Communist Party of China.Later,the new guideline for development became the overall framework for the current leadership's work and has aroused interest at home and abroad.From Issue No.17 onward,Beijing Review publishes a series of commentaries by foreign researchers commissioned by Renmin University of China’s Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies.     

Firms’ rationales for interaction with research universities and the principles for public co-funding

R&D managers at 50 firms who have formal relations with two research universities in Stockholm are interviewed about their rationales for collaboration. Drawing on this material, a distinctive typology of rationales for establishing cooperative relations is presented. While the typology demonstrates a considerable breadth of interaction rationales, rationales related to innovation, in terms of invented or improved products or processes, are found to be the main drivers for interaction. Based on this framework, we analyse which rationales for interaction are consistent with public rationales for supporting university-industry relationships. Public co-funding that allow firms to influence (part of) the academic agenda is identified as a particularly interesting case that requires further theoretical attention.     

The structure and dynamics of the global network of inter-firm R&D partnerships 1989–2002

Research and development (R&D) partnerships are formed to share the risks and benefits of R&D. At the macro level, they result in a globe-spanning network that can be a valuable source of international knowledge spillovers. This network is the subject of a considerable body of literature. Often-made claims are that R&D collaboration is an important activity in a competitive environment, but that the importance of international partnerships has declined over time. Furthermore, it is claimed that collaborations are disproportionally concentrated within the developed economies. However, this literature fails to account for variations in the sizes of underlying firm populations between countries and over time. We argue that these population sizes create an opportunity structure of available collaboration partners for firms, and that ignoring variations in this structure potentially leads to erroneous conclusions about the structure and dynamics of the R&D network. To address this problem, we study the structure and dynamics of the global R&D network on an international and cross-industry scale using longitudinal data for 1989?C2002. We integrate data on public firms and their R&D partnerships and confront earlier findings with our data and a set of methods, which enables us to correct for the structure and dynamics in the firm population. While our study confirms previous findings concerning the worldwide trend in collaborative activity, it also shows that results on individual countries need correction. In particular, the importance of R&D collaboration for US companies is overestimated, while their openness towards foreign partners is underestimated.     

Ownership structure, regulation and the market for corporate control in the EU banking sector

This paper analyzes the efficiency of shareholder control and hostile takeovers as corporate governance mechanisms in the EU banking sector against the background of the existing corporate governance regulations and different ownership structures of banks in the EU. The results indicate the there is trade-off in EU corporate governance regulation between better investor protection and a higher efficiency of the market for corporate control. The main problem is differences in the ownership structure of banks in the EU banking sector. This implies that EU corporate governance regulations should be customized to the specific ownership structure of banks and not toward harmonising national regulations.     

Dan ?t’astny: The Economics of Economics

The Economics of Economics (2010) by Dan ?t??astny extends the economic approach of public choice and law and economics to see how economists behave so as to improve their well being in the world of uncertainty, scarcity and institutions. According to ?t??astny, economists have been adjusting their behavior to the changing institutional environment and, consequently, ended up policy irrelevant. The book review provides an assessment of the model ?t??astny employs. On the one hand, ?t??astny offers a looking glass that helps seeing the decision making process of an economist from a price theory perspective. I suggest, on the other hand, that the model would be more accurate had it not considered preferences constant. In fact, the evolution of economists?? preferences and the changing sense of praiseworthiness is what the model should try to explain.     

Neue Perspektiven der Gemeindezusammenarbeit? Die B-VG-Novelle BGBl I 60/2011 und ihre Relevanz für die interkommunale Kooperation

Die B-VG-Novelle BGBl I 60/2011 enth?lt einige wichtige Neuerungen in den verfassungsrechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen der interkommunalen Kooperation. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei der Gemeindeverband als zentrale Institution der Gemeindezusammenarbeit in ?sterreich. Allerdings verdient auch das neu eingeführte Instrument der ?ffentlich-rechtlichen Vereinbarungen von Gemeinden Interesse. Der vorliegende Beitrag analysiert die neue Verfassungsrechtslage und prüft ihre Relevanz für die künftige Gemeindezusammenarbeit.     

On State, Identity and Rights: Putting Identity First

The paper considers the nature of the state understood as the political unity articulated on the basis of a collective identity which provides the state with its capacity to make decisions. The foremost decision of the state to protect and defend this identity is the source of its authority to enforce laws. Collective identity thus represents an object of special interest, unlike both ??political?? interests (Millian other-regarding acts) and private interests (Millian self-regarding acts). The validation of laws through this special interest is a necessary condition for both of these latter kinds of interests to materialize. Hence, unlike the Millian thesis of two different kinds of interests (self- and other-regarding), here we take that there are three types or spheres of interests. Any conception of rights, then, will cover a subset of interests found in the domains of all of those three types of interests: in the domain of political interest the issue concerns selection among competing sets of legitimate interests, within the domain of private interests the point is to discern those that will be protected by law, while the third type of interests, the object of which is a unique collective identity and its defining specificity, represents an overarching interest that is embedded in any legitimate collective concern. In this scheme, well-suited for democratic theory, the majority/minority discourse is a matter of distinguishing which particular set of legitimate interests is chosen to be dominant (e.g., which political party is in power) and which ones are waiting for the opportunity to achieve their transformation from minority (opposition) to majority (i. e. government). If, however, there is no well-defined collective identity, minorities acquire a new meaning. Rather than being possible future majorities, they form a nucleus of competing collective identities with, sometimes hopeless but still alive, aspirations to sovereignty. Thus they become sources of likely conflicts that may go well beyond political controversies.